Now that they've finally gotten relief, they're terrified to go back to the system that failed them.

But when it comes to uprooting the kids from their new schools, voucher opponents blame Republicans at the Legislature for pushing the program in the first place.

"The Legislature wanted a test case on vouchers," Peters says. "So they [took] disabled kids and put them in programs they knew would be struck down. They knew they were starting these kids on an alternate route that they'd get wrenched out of."

Social Eye Media 2008

Governor Janet Napolitano signed off on scholarships for disabled and foster kids — only to give them the ax two years later.

I think Peters is right on one level: There's a good chance the Supreme Court could strike down this program.

The problem is, it hasn't done so yet. And as best I can tell, no one bothered to assess the program before giving it the ax. Nor was there much talk about the short-term consequences.

The decision was premature, at best — and callous, at worst.

When I spoke with the governor's spokeswoman, Jeanine L'Ecuyer, she seemed surprised to hear that kids would have to transfer out of their schools because the program's funding was cut.

It's not that L'Ecuyer missed something. No, when the appellate court ruled against the scholarships, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard advised the state that the program wasn't constitutional and therefore wasn't eligible for funding. Even though the Arizona Supreme Court quickly set him straight on that — of course the state could keep funding the program, pending a final court decision — Goddard's advice gave Democrats a good excuse to make the cut. Scholarship advocates say they fought to get the Democrats' attention, but their pleas fell on deaf ears.

So they used the program to make a deal when they needed one — and now they're running away just as it's showing results.

That's cold.

Meanwhile, the program's political backers say they were blindsided by the cuts. They were simply out of the loop in the budget process. The House couldn't manage to agree on a budget, so when Senate Democrats persuaded four Republicans to join them on their version, that plan was sent to the House for a straight up or down vote, with no room for negotiation. Even Speaker of the House of Representatives Jim Weiers (R-Phoenix) says the budget went to a vote without a shred of his input. (That tells you something about the Capitol these days — the freakin' speaker can't even manage to get himself included in negotiations?)

Once the deal was cut in the Senate, it was too late to ask for changes in the House.

"Things were done at 2 a.m. so no one knows what the consequence will be [of cutting programs]," Weiers claims. "I have personally spoken to legislators who voted for this budget, and when I talked to them about it, they said they had no idea what was in it."

Now, that should inspire your confidence.

So the Democrats were determined to stop the program, even if it meant hurting kids. And despite having a majority in both House and Senate, the Republicans were too clumsy to stop them.

That's politics, I guess. But when the future of some of the most vulnerable kids in the state hangs in the balance, it's politics at its most infuriating.

Weiers has since identified a pot of money to fund the program, but Attorney General Goddard will need to sign off on the allocation. And, frankly, it seems unlikely that Goddard will say yes. Even the speaker can't just single-handedly appropriate funding; now that the budget has passed, L'Ecuyer says the Legislature would have to call a special session to discuss further spending.

That hasn't happened.

The only solution may be private donations. The Arizona School Tuition Association has a Web page, http://astoa.com/education/donate.php, with helpful links for anyone interested in chipping in — and getting a dollar-for-dollar tax credit while they're at it.

You can call them emotional, but parents in the scholarship program are desperate to minimize chaos in their children's lives. "Everybody hates change," says Myra Zwagerman of Tempe, whose son Lee is in the program. "But these kids, they really don't do well with change.

"To take a kid who's excelling, and put him back in a public school setting . . . If these programs aren't funded, think about what happens to these kids."

That's exactly the problem. The Democrats didn't think about the kids.

And now, unless the private sector comes through, they're in for a rough transition.

Well, I guess you have other motives besides the education of your child as you didn't respond to my question about what public school ignored your IEP.

Tom Horne could easily make this issue a non-issue by agreeing to accept the funds from the House legislator and make sure they are used by the Department of Education in a manner that would properly educate the less than 500 students which had been involved in the scholarship program. There is no provision of the law that says the Department of Education can't spend the money where it wants in contracting with private vendors to educate school children with special needs. In fact that is the law. However, because the right wing nuts want to open public education funds to religious institutions without going through the Dept. of Ed. they reject those options and harm their children by standing by with their hands in their pockets complaining about the lack of action by others.

I say get your hands out of your pockets and start writing letters to Tom Horne and the House Majority Leader telling them to do the right thing - Fund the Dept. of Ed. properly so these children can be educated in an appropriate manner.

I say you are when you stated: "This is addressed to Mr. Bailey and other left wing liberals"

Using terms like that is name calling and not intended to further civilised discourse but only to denigrate others in an attempt to make your argument look better. Only bullys pull that crap. You're not a bully are you?

Brendon says: "I support the federal law called 'No Child Left Behind' It finally has some accountability for public School Systems and teachers."

What does No Child Left Behind (a "liberal" policy by the way) have to do with giving taxpayer monies to religious schools in violation of our Constitution?

Brendon says: "That is a conservative view!"

No, it is not. Look up the words you are using in the dictionary. You are bending the meaning to fit your own argument.

Brendon says: "Liberals like you don't see the system as broke."

Yes, I do actually (although I am not a liberal - stop the name calling). It's broke because of people (like you) who elect politicians who don't properly fund our public schools.

Brendon says: "The Arizona Legislature put the Scholarship for Students with Disabilities into law (signed by the governor). It is legal. Check your facts."

I did, then it was not funded this year. That's legal, check your facts.

Brendon says: "We did have an IEP.

Oh my, I think I'm going to explode with pride. You finally addressed ONE question I had. After all the blithering on about unrelated bullshirt, you actually answered my simple question.

Brendon says: "The school system refused to abide by it."

Now, another simple question - Which school system was this that "refused to abide by the IEP?

BTW - Before you spout off again about who is liberal and who is conservative, maybe you should consult a dictionary and maybe check into the PC issue (i.e., Polite Conversation).

Mr. Bailey; This is MR. Fay! Who's name calling? I support the federal law called 'No Child Left Behind' It finally has some accountability for public School Systems and teachers. That is a conservative view! Liberals like you don't see the system as broke. You don't see the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on the public school system in this country. Want proof that public education doesn't work? Go to a store and see if the 22 year old clerk can make change without the register telling him or her how much to give back! See the terrible resumes that high school and college graduates send out! Look at this generation of high school students who cannot read. The system is broke.

The Arizona Legislature put the Scholarship for Students with Disabilities into law (signed by the governor). It is legal. Check your facts. As for myself being disingeniuos, I want what is BEST for my daughter. She is entitled like any other child to an education. The public school system failed my daughter (an most special needs students). My daughter has a right to go where she needs to get what she is entitled to. Every GOOD parent will fight for their kids. Let's put politics aside and think about the children. Because of the school my daughter attends, she can make change, read, and write grammatically correct sentences. She could not ever do that in public school. We did have an IEP. The school system refused to abide by it. They refused to give any options. We took the option to put our daughter in private school. End of story.

WELL AREN'T YOU SPECIAL. Did you know that typing in capitals is equilavent to yelling in speech? I'm assuming you didn't know that as I didn't think you really are that rude.

Did you know that as part of a child's Individual Education Plan that the public school can place a child into a private educational institution? Yes, it's true. If the professionals (who know that they're falliable) feel that it is necessary or a parent can convince the school, they will elect to pay the tuition for a private school placement out of public funds. THis is okay, constitutionally, because it's the school doing it.

However, if a parent (who is normally VERY subjective - notice I yelled) wants to place their child into a private school outside the public school, system, I think they should pay for it themselves or get a private scholarship.

Me, I think you just want to make a legal case in an attempt to overturn the separate of church and state in public education set up by our Constitution. So really, you don't care so much for your child (or you would have worked within the system to get the help that is available for you there) YOU JUST WANT TO USE YOUR CHILD FOR YOUR OWN PETTY POLITICAL GAME.

How sad.

I hope your child grows up, reads about this crap you pulled and gives you what for in about 20 years.

WHAT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS SAY THEY WILL DO FOR YOUR KIDS AND WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS ARE TWO SEPERATE THINGS. I THINK IT'S VERY EASY TO HAVE AN OPINION WITH OUT WALKING A MILE IN ANOTHER MAN'S SHOES, I AM AFRAID IT IS ONLY JUST THAT, AN OPINION. THE FACT IS MANY PUBLIC SCHOOL NEED A GOOD KICK IN THE PANTS!!! THE LAST THING YOU DO IS GIVE UP ON A CHILD. THEY WILL PROVE YOU WRONG EVERY TIME. YOU ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER THIS, THE MONEY IS BEING GIVEN TO THE PARENTS NOT THE PRIVATE SCHOOLS, AND MUCH LIKE SSI IT IS TO BENEFIT THE CHILD'S WELFARE. ENSURING THAT NO CHILD GETS LEFT BEHIND. SINCE MANY OF YOU HAVE SOO MUCH FREE TIME CRITISIZING OTHER'S WHY DON'T YOU DEVELOPE SOME PLAN TO MAKE SURE YOUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AREN'T SITTING ON THEIR ASS!!! I AM SURE IF IT WERE YOUR CHILD IN THEIR CLASSROOMS YOU WOULD EXPECT THE SAME!!!

Well, to get to your point about me being a liberal, I'd have to take exception to that. There are not really any "liberal" or "conservative" people, just the positions those people take on specific issues. What you're doing is just plain mean-spirited name calling so you can espouse your self-serving opinions (i.e., let's have our tax dollars support your child's private education - a "liberal" position BTW).

It's very conservative to support public education in this country (you ARE from the US of A aren't you?). If a person takes the position that public education should be supported by tax revenue, that is a conservative position, NOT a liberal one. Public education has been a mainstay of the people on this continent before whitey ever killed his first injun (Native Americans practiced public education). Did you know that the Constitution provides for public education? It also provides that public funds, taxes, cannot be used for private schools. Did you know that? If so, why are you trying to make the officials of our government here violate their oath of office instead of trying to change the consitution? (see more questions - specific answers to them would be welcome).

I think the disingenious basis from which you approach this issue is very apparent in that you did not answer any of my questions: Did the parent(s) ask the school to prepare an independent eduction plan? That question was not addressed in the article or in your post as well Ms. Fay. Did you know that Public schools are required to produced these plans when requested?

PS - I would prefer that you not be so inflammatory in your posting your liberal views on public eduction here. Can't we have a calm and "conservative" discussion without the insults and name calling?

Thank you for recognizing not every child is going to be able to thrive in a public school. Sure would be easier if they did, but we're glad there are options! Well, there *were* options. Now we parents are scrambling like crazy to try to find money in this economy. All the parents I know are breaking their backs working overtime and trying to find ways to support their kids who happen to need specialized education. It's not their fault if the public schools can't give them what they need. It's no one's fault, but it sure would be nice to have some help. Thank you for bringing awareness regarding the State Tax Credit - you're right, many people don't know about it. At least no one has taken *that* program away!

This is addressed to Mr. Bailey and other left wing liberals. Sarah Fenske did an admirable job researching ALL the information for her piece. You can try to tell us that public schools systems know what is best for our daughter. You can tell us they can do a better job than we can. But the facts speak for themselves. The public school system did not do anything for our daughter. They took her money (and for them it is all about money) and spent 1/2 of it to pay part of a teacher's salary at the school; a teacher who had nothing to do with special education! My daughter had learned absolutely nothing in school as is witnessed by her 1st grade reading and kindergarten math level. In her private school, in one year, Rebecca jumped up to a 5th grade math and reading level. Her socialization skills improved tremendously. There was no stress by peers.

The facts speak for themselves. The public school couldn't (and didn't want to) educate my daughter. They are in it for the money. Teachers Unions are a disgraceful Democratic PAC. Liberals want to take our children at birth and raise them (because they think they can do a better job) and stiff us with a bill that consists of nothing more than bloated wasteful spending.

My daughter's money was spent at her public school on everything except her special needs. Not on private schools. Our daughter had several IEPs and the public school refused to abide by them.

The truth obviously must be 'skewing' this issue. A true liberal never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.If you tell a lie enough times, the teller will begin to believe it. I think if you study Journalism 101, Ms. Fenske fits the bill as a good journalist. Study CNN,PBS,ABC,NBC,CBS news to learn what 'Hack Journalism is.

So, Sarah Fenske thinks the Republicans are the stalwart champions of disabled children's rights?! Forgive me, I threw up in my mouth at that sad howler! My nephew is profoundly disabled and due to the Republicans' dismal lack of interest in his welfare (and all disabled children), my sister had to move to liberal, Democratic Massachussetts for him to get the schooling and rehabilitation he required. At least, until Mitt Romney gutted the funding! Don't attack the hard-working Democrats like Janet Napolitano because they won't support right-wing efforts to force school vouchers down the voters' throats on the backs of these unfortunate children. It's Republicans like Weiers, Karen Johnson, and the like who are shameless in using these children to further their own agendas. What is Sarah Fenske smoking that she thinks the Republicans have the right idea? They're the ones wasting voters' money on a corrosive and unnecessary anti-gay amendment that was already defeated by the majority of Arizona voters. Think of what purposes all THAT money could do for disadvantaged children. After the Hugh Hallman lovefest she wrote two weeks ago, I thought Fenske was sadly misinformed, but now I think she's some kind of cretinous mole who's infiltrated the New Times from the GOP National Committee (or at least the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth)!

Sarah, did you happen to recognize the irony in what you are saying? The parents moved from Massachetts to Tucson (did they "chose" to do this?) and then made the "choice" to place their child in a public school. You seem to be advocating on behalf of parents' choosing what schools (public or private) their children attend, using public tax dollars to pay for it of course. The implication is that you think parents know better than professional educational therapists/counselors. However, you use an example where the parents CHOSE to place their child in the wrong environment - a public school with little experience or resources that could teach their child properly.

Where did the parents get the information on where to move their child too after they found out that the "CHOICE" they made to place their child in a mainstream public school was incorrect and harmful to their child's education? From the public school's professional counselor?

Why didn't the public school you reference have a professional therapist on staff? Not enough money? Maybe because money was being paid by the State to private religious institutions? Was the public school asked to develop an individual plan for the young lady?

So many questions left unanswered by Ms. Fenske. I wonder if she already had the answers and left them out of her article in an effort to further skew her take on the "news" she was presenting.

I think Sarah Fenske should think a little harder about what makes a journalist a good one or a hack.

Don Peters was right: if Sara Fenske or the voucher proponents wants to be angry with anyone, they should be angry at the Legislature for setting up this unconstitutional program to begin with. Arizona Constitution, Art. IX, Sec. 10: No tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money made in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school, or any public service corporation." Pretty clear that the Legislature can't fund vouchers for private schools. This IS the proverbial camel's nose under the tent and the fate of public education is at stake.

Don Peters is a right-wing hack so I'm surprised that he's advocating an entitlement program. I always thought that conservatives were interested in elminating all entitlment programs (including social security folks). Now as I understand it the funding of this scholarship program would be considered a liberal program. Of course it funds religious institutions with taxpayer dollars (who cares about separation of church and state) so I'm guessing that the reason for this flip-flop is the liberal love of christ has warmed the cockles of his heart.

I'm very surprised at New Times for writing such a one-sided article. What you want to be this article gets no awards for the New Times this year.